19341Case T-217/22: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2023 — Lifestyle Equities v EUIPO — Greenwich Polo Club (GREENWICH POLO CLUB GPC 2002) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark GREENWICH POLO CLUB GPC 2002 — Earlier EU figurative mark BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB — Relative ground for invalidity — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))cjeu_case · 1 марта 2023 г.
19342Case T-102/22: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2023 — Transgourmet Ibérica v EUIPO — Aldi (Gourmet) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Gourmet — Earlier national word mark GOURMET — Relative ground for invalidity — Distinctive character of earlier mark — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Form differing in elements which alter the distinctive character)cjeu_case · 1 марта 2023 г.
19343Case T-38/22: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2023 — Romedor Pharma v EUIPO — Perfect Care Distribution (CERVIRON perfect care) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — European Union figurative mark CERVIRON perfect care — Earlier unregistered national trade mark CERVIRON — Relative ground for invalidity — Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)cjeu_case · 1 марта 2023 г.
19344Case T-37/22: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2023 — Romedor Pharma v EUIPO — Perfect Care Distribution (Cerviron) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark Cerviron — Non-registered earlier national trade mark CERVIRON — Relative ground for invalidity — Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)cjeu_case · 1 марта 2023 г.
19345Case T-36/22: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2023 — Romedor Pharma v EUIPO — Perfect Care Distribution (PERFECT FARMA CERVIRON) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark PERFECT FARMA CERVIRON — Non-registered earlier national trade mark CERVIRON — Relative grounds for invalidity — Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))cjeu_case · 1 марта 2023 г.
19346Case T-25/22: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2023 — Canai Technology v EUIPO — Trend Fin (HE&ME) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark HE&ME — Earlier Benelux word mark ME — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)cjeu_case · 1 марта 2023 г.
19347Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2023.#Gruppo Mauro Saviola Srl v Ministero della Transizione Ecologica (già Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare) and Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Requirements to set out the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Lack of sufficient information – Manifest inadmissibility.#Case C-94/22.cjeu_case · 1 марта 2023 г.
19348Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2023.#Gruppo Mauro Saviola Srl v Ministero della Transizione Ecologica (già Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare) and Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Requirements to set out the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Lack of sufficient information – Manifest inadmissibility.#Case C-94/22.cjeu_case · 1 марта 2023 г.
19349Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2023.#Edison Next SpA, v Ministero della Transizione Ecologica and Others.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Requirements to set out the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Lack of sufficient information – Manifest inadmissibility.#Case C-93/22.cjeu_case · 1 марта 2023 г.
19350Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2023.#Edison Next SpA, v Ministero della Transizione Ecologica and Others.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Requirements to set out the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Lack of sufficient information – Manifest inadmissibility.#Case C-93/22.cjeu_case · 1 марта 2023 г.
19351Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2023.#Edison Next SpA v Ministero della Transizione Ecologica and Others.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Requirements to set out the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Lack of sufficient information – Manifest inadmissibility.#Case C-92/22.cjeu_case · 1 марта 2023 г.
19352Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2023.#Edison Next SpA v Ministero della Transizione Ecologica and Others.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Requirements to set out the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Lack of sufficient information – Manifest inadmissibility.#Case C-92/22.cjeu_case · 1 марта 2023 г.
19353Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2023.#Edison Next SpA v Ministero della Transizione Ecologica and Others.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Requirements to set out the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Lack of sufficient information – Manifest inadmissibility.#Case C-91/22.cjeu_case · 1 марта 2023 г.
19354Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2023.#Edison Next SpA v Ministero della Transizione Ecologica and Others.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Requirements to set out the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Lack of sufficient information – Manifest inadmissibility.#Case C-91/22.cjeu_case · 1 марта 2023 г.
19355Case C-94/22, Gruppo Mauro Saviola: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Gruppo Mauro Saviola Srl v Ministero della Transizione Ecologica (formerly Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare), Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Requirements to set out the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Lack of sufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility)cjeu_case · 1 марта 2023 г.
19356Case C-93/22, Edison Next: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Edison Next SpA, formerly Fenice — Qualità per l’ambiente SpA v Ministero della Transizione Ecologica (formerly Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare), Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Requirements to set out the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Lack of sufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility)cjeu_case · 1 марта 2023 г.
19357Case C-92/22, Edison Next: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Edison Next SpA, formerly Fenice — Qualità per l’ambiente SpA v Ministero della Transizione Ecologica (formerly Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare), Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Requirements to set out the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Lack of sufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility)cjeu_case · 1 марта 2023 г.
19358Case C-91/22, Edison Next: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Edison Next SpA, formerly Fenice — Qualità per l’ambiente SpA v Ministero della Transizione Ecologica (formerly Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare), Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Requirements to set out the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Lack of sufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility)cjeu_case · 1 марта 2023 г.
19359Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 1 March 2023.#Worldwide Brands, Inc. Zweigniederlassung Deutschland v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU word mark CAMEL – Evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal – Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 – Genuine use of the mark – Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 – No assessment of some of the evidence submitted.#Case T-552/21.cjeu_case · 1 марта 2023 г.
19360Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 1 March 2023.#Worldwide Brands, Inc. Zweigniederlassung Deutschland v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU word mark CAMEL – Evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal – Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 – Genuine use of the mark – Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 – No assessment of some of the evidence submitted.#Case T-552/21.cjeu_case · 1 марта 2023 г.